No cognitive processing in the unconscious, Anesthetic‐Like, state of sleep. Robert P. Vertes, Stephanie B. Linley. Journal of Comparative Neurology, May 30 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.24963
Abstract: We review evidence challenging the hypothesis that memories are processed or consolidated in sleep. We argue that the brain is in an unconscious state in sleep, akin to general anesthesia, and hence is incapable of meaningful cognitive processing – the sole purview of waking consciousness. At minimum, the encoding of memories in sleep would require that waking events are faithfully transferred to and reproduced in sleep. Remarkably, however, this has never been demonstrated, as waking experiences are never truly replicated in sleep but rather appear in very altered or distorted forms. General anesthetics (GAs) exert their effects through endogenous sleep‐wake control systems and accordingly GAs and sleep share several common features: sensory blockade, immobility, amnesia and lack of awareness (unconsciousness). The loss of consciousness in non‐REM (NREM) sleep or to GAs is characterized by: (1) delta oscillations throughout the cortex; (2) marked reductions in neural activity (from waking) over widespread regions of the cortex, most pronounced in frontal and parietal cortices; and (3) a significant disruption of the functional connectivity of thalamocortical and corticocortical networks, particularly those involved in “higher order” cognitive functions. Several (experimental) reports in animals and humans have shown that disrupting the activity of the cortex, particularly the orbitofrontal cortex, severely impairs higher order cognitive and executive functions. The profound and widespread deactivation of the cortex in the unconscious states of NREM sleep or GA would be expected to produce an equivalent, or undoubtedly a much greater, disruptive effect on mnemonic and cognitive functions. In conclusion, we contend that the unconscious, severely altered state of the brain in NREM sleep would negate any possibility of cognitive processing in NREM sleep.
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Infidelity, chastity/purity, and long-term mating success increase women’s status more than men’s; promiscuity lowers the status of both sexes, but lowers it more dramatically for women than for men
Buss, D. M., Durkee, P. K., Shackelford, T. K., Bowdle, B. F., Schmitt, D. P., Brase, G. L., Choe, J. C., & Trofimova, I. (2020). Human status criteria: Sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000206
Abstract: Social status is a central and universal feature of our highly social species. Reproductively relevant resources, including food, territory, mating opportunities, powerful coalitional alliances, and group-provided health care, flow to those high in status and trickle only slowly to those low in status. Despite its importance and centrality to human social group living, the scientific understanding of status contains a large gap in knowledge—the precise criteria by which individuals are accorded high or low status in the eyes of their group members. It is not known whether there exist universal status criteria, nor the degree to which status criteria vary across cultures. Also unknown is whether status criteria are sex differentiated, and the degree of cross-cultural variability and consistency of sex-differentiated status criteria. The current article investigates status criteria across 14 countries (N = 2,751). Results provide the first systematic documentation of potentially universal and sex-differentiated status criteria. Discussion outlines important next steps in understanding the psychology of status.
Abstract: Social status is a central and universal feature of our highly social species. Reproductively relevant resources, including food, territory, mating opportunities, powerful coalitional alliances, and group-provided health care, flow to those high in status and trickle only slowly to those low in status. Despite its importance and centrality to human social group living, the scientific understanding of status contains a large gap in knowledge—the precise criteria by which individuals are accorded high or low status in the eyes of their group members. It is not known whether there exist universal status criteria, nor the degree to which status criteria vary across cultures. Also unknown is whether status criteria are sex differentiated, and the degree of cross-cultural variability and consistency of sex-differentiated status criteria. The current article investigates status criteria across 14 countries (N = 2,751). Results provide the first systematic documentation of potentially universal and sex-differentiated status criteria. Discussion outlines important next steps in understanding the psychology of status.
---
[T]he content-level analyses further confirmed that all components of attractiveness (i.e., hygiene, appearance) and domestic skills (i.e., cooking ability, parenting skill, and cleanliness) are more central to women’s status than men’s status across the countries sampled. Sex differences in the effects of women’s sexual strategy on status are especially clear at the content level. Infidelity, chastity/purity, and long-term mating success increase women’s status more than men’s. Sexual promiscuity lowers the status of both sexes, but lowers it more dramatically for women than for men (see Figure 11).